Main Menu

Tell it to the judge

Keyes/Bowen v Obama

Justice

This article shares what some of the judges have had to say about the “birther” lawsuits.

Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so….

She has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States. Instead, she uses her Complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric…

After conducting a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous.

Federal judge Clay D. Land in Rhodes v. MacDonald.


Plaintiff’s complaint, at its core, is but another attempt to embroil a United States District Court in an ongoing controversy over whether Barack Obama is a native-born citizen of the United States of America…. As in Hollister, “[t]he right thing to do is to bring [this case] to an early end.”

Federal Judge Richard Lazarra in Cook v. Simtech.


Lawyers who come to court to present grievances, however, are held to a higher standard than disadvantaged or unrepresented persons. For lawyers, there are rules…. John D. Hemenway is hereby reprimanded for his part in the preparation, prosecution and filing of a legally frivolous suit in this court.

Federal Judge James Robertson in Hollister v. Soetoro.

More to come, as opinions become available.

, , ,

66 Responses to Tell it to the judge

  1. avatar
    BlackLion September 17, 2009 at 10:00 pm #

    Orly may be in trouble with the state bar…

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/orly_complaint.php?ref=fpblg

    It looks like someone may be reporting her for her comments against the judge to the state bar of CA…

  2. avatar
    Greg September 17, 2009 at 11:49 pm #

    I’m just wondering, what is it with the birthers and illiteracy? Orly thinks that Middle District Local Rule 7 is going to save her bacon, since it gave her 20 days to respond to the government’s motion to dismiss. But, she clearly didn’t read to the bottom of Rule 7, where it says:

    7.7 MOTIONS EXCEPTED FROM STANDARD BRIEFING SCHEDULE. The following motions may be considered by the Court immediately after filing: motions for extension of time, motions to exceed the page limitation, motions for hearings, motions to file surreply briefs, motions which clearly have no basis in law, and such other motions as the Court may otherwise determine from the parties to be unopposed or in which the Court may clearly determine from the record before it the relative legal positions of the parties so as to obviate the need for the filing of opposition thereto.

    Clue-phone to Orly – your position was SO bad that the judge didn’t need to give you 20 days to respond. That’s how bad your mojo is!

    And Leo thinks he’s found a wonderful way to get discovery in Barnett v. Obama. Since the judge allowed discovery for any issue relating to standing, and the Government mentioned that Congress can object, and Cheney didn’t ask for objections, just serve interrogatories on Cheney and Congress! What could possibly be wrong with that?

    1. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 33 only allows the use of interrogatories for parties to the lawsuit.

    2. Even if you wanted to get this information through deposition FRCP 30 or 31, you need court permission to go beyond 10 depositions. I wonder if the court might have a problem with 536 depositions?

  3. avatar
    misha September 18, 2009 at 1:03 am #

    I read the whole thing. Hooray!

  4. avatar
    Bob September 18, 2009 at 1:04 am #

    Funny, no discussion whatsoever as to how any of that will prove that the plaintiffs have standing.

  5. avatar
    nbc September 18, 2009 at 1:25 am #

    And Leo thinks he’s found a wonderful way to get discovery in Barnett v. Obama. Since the judge allowed discovery for any issue relating to standing, and the Government mentioned that Congress can object, and Cheney didn’t ask for objections, just serve interrogatories on Cheney and Congress! What could possibly be wrong with that?

    And what would that achieve? The rules of Congress and its powers are well described and Congress followed the abridged rules.

    Mr Cheney, did you follow the rules?
    Yes Siree

    Of course, perhaps we could add some questions as to his role in the firing of the Federal Prosecutors πŸ™‚

  6. avatar
    Lupin September 18, 2009 at 3:01 am #

    Very well put.

    High time someone takes a stand to clean up the profession.

    Honestly, in the last two decades the win-at-all-cost ethic (or lack thereof) has done a lot of damage to the legal profession in the US of A. (IMHO)

    I realize Atticus Finch never really existed, but we could more to enforce the rules.

  7. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 18, 2009 at 6:22 am #

    Greg: And Leo thinks he’s found a wonderful way to get discovery in Barnett v. Obama. Since the judge allowed discovery for any issue relating to standing, and the Government mentioned that Congress can object, and Cheney didn’t ask for objections, just serve interrogatories on Cheney and Congress!

    I am sure this has already been mentioned:
    “Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.” Leo says the DOJ left out an important part of the law in their quote, but he himself forgot to read to the end of the sentence he thought was so important. What does he think “if any” means? It means waht it says: “if there are any objections”. That is why the next sentence explains how to make objections!

    As a chess player, Leo Donofrio has a rather impressive ELO rating (that is a basic statistic number based on your wins and losses and ties and on the ELO ratings of your opponents). I found out however how he managed to keep that rating during the last year: in tournaments where he is doing badly (losing to a guy with a rating 300 points) he promptly retires from the field, so that his performance is deemed unfit for changing the stats. His poker performance level too has been called in question by a specialist in the field. Leo is a kibitzer at chess, poker and law.

  8. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 18, 2009 at 6:23 am #

    “with a rating 300 points” -> “with a rating 300 ELO points lower than him”

  9. avatar
    Vince Treacy September 18, 2009 at 8:38 am #

    Leo is terminally ignorant. The Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution bars any and all possible “discovery’ against Members of Congress for anything in the course of their duties. See Art.I, Sec. 6.

    “and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.”

  10. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 18, 2009 at 9:45 am #

    Obama’s eligibility wasn’t spoken about or debated in the House or Senate during tabulation of the vote results. That’s Leo point. A call for objections is required, not a debate.

    The debate over Obama’s eligibility should or could have taken place at the Democratic and Republican conventions or during the primaries.

    At a minimum, the Chair of the Democrat Nominating Convention, Nazi Pelosi and Sen. DiFi (not sure what here title was at the Dem. Convention) should be subpoenaed and deposed.

  11. avatar
    Greg September 18, 2009 at 10:27 am #

    Try reading about the clause. “The protection of this clause is not limited to words spoken in debate.”

  12. avatar
    Greg September 18, 2009 at 10:30 am #

    “The protection of this clause is not limited to words spoken in debate.”

    “Committee reports, resolutions, and the act of voting are equally covered, as are things generally done in a session of the House by one of its members in relation to the business before it.”

    Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 502 (1969), quotingKilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 204 (1881).

    Do you guys EVER look at the law before you start spouting off?

  13. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 18, 2009 at 10:41 am #

    Depose the leader of a party? How do you do that? Oh wait a minute, they did use to do that.

    In the Soviet Union.

  14. avatar
    Greg September 18, 2009 at 11:02 am #

    Google “Constitution Annotated” and look at the annotations for Art. 1, Sec. 6. It doesn’t just apply to debates. There are cases on it.

  15. avatar
    Randy September 18, 2009 at 11:53 am #

    Oh For Goodness Sake website is reporting that Orly’s latest has been rejected, no signature.

    Swing and a miss.

  16. avatar
    Bob September 18, 2009 at 11:57 am #

    It looks like Strunk filed something in the D.C. Circuit relating to his FOIA request that is pending in the D.C. District Court.

    Can someone with a PACER account check that out?

  17. avatar
    NBC September 18, 2009 at 12:03 pm #

    Seems our dear friend Sven is having some problems dealing with the reality.
    Per Constitution, the same one birthers pretend to defend, the qualification of the President is well laid out.
    Calling people names merely underlines the well stated warning by Speaker of the House Pelosi.
    It’s a sad day when insults replace logic and reason.

  18. avatar
    NBC September 18, 2009 at 12:06 pm #

    Hahaha, but that’s just the Constitution saying that…
    This is obviously an emergency… We need no stinking rules…

  19. avatar
    Bob September 18, 2009 at 2:11 pm #

    Also, even there was an objection, how does that confer standing to the Barnett plaintiffs? How were any of them particularly injured?

    This is warmed-over Apuzzo.

  20. avatar
    brygenon September 18, 2009 at 4:24 pm #

    There’s yet more from Taitz and Judge Land.

    One thing not to tell the judge is that his ruling was “tantamount to treason”. Judge Land had already warned Taitz that her suit was frivolous and any more of the same would risk sanctions. Tatiz went ahead and filed a motion for reconsideration:

    http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.15.0.pdf

    “It was deja vu all over again,” begins Judge Land’s ruling:

    http://ia311029.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.17.0.pdf

    Lots of good quotes, but those who enjoy a good birther smack-down will want to read the whole thing.

  21. avatar
    brygenon September 18, 2009 at 5:28 pm #

    Update: Captain Rhodes fires Taitz. The client did not authorize the motion for stay/rehearing, and plans to complain about Taitz to the California State Bar.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19905657/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-18-Letter-regarding-from-plaintiff-regarding-withdrawal-of-motion-to-stay-Govuscourtsgamd77605180

  22. avatar
    Mark September 18, 2009 at 5:42 pm #

    I am still amused that she insists on calling herself “Esquire”!!!!!

    How great would it be if Capt. Rhodes goes to Iraq to find her unit commander is African-American?

    Sir! I am not a racist, not me, no way, sir!

  23. avatar
    Bob September 18, 2009 at 5:49 pm #

    To Taitz’s credit, she the captain of the litigation; she doesn’t needs Rhodes’ explicit approval to file anything.

  24. avatar
    Whatever4 September 18, 2009 at 5:53 pm #

    OK, I’m getting lost. The Motion to Reconsider wasn’t, it was a Stay, but it was unsigned, then the judge denies it with another slapdown with an order to show why she shouldn’t be sanctioned, then Capt. Rhodes fires Taitz claiming she didn’t have anything to do with the strange document. I think I have all that.

    Can Orly claim it wasn’t her that wrote it, please don’t sanction her, it was the disbarred assistant? (Assuming she were actually capapble of considering such a thing?)

  25. avatar
    Bob September 18, 2009 at 5:55 pm #

    Can Orly claim it wasn’t her that wrote it, please don’t sanction her, it was the disbarred assistant?

    She’s counsel of record; the buck stops with her.

  26. avatar
    Bob September 18, 2009 at 6:02 pm #

    BTW, the California State Bar requires you to self-report if you are sanctioned at least $1000.

    So if Judge Land follows through on his threat, Taitz herself must tell the bar that she was sanctioned.

  27. avatar
    Whatever4 September 18, 2009 at 6:05 pm #

    Thanks — Can I mention how much I appreciate all the work Doc puts into this site and the work of the folks commenting? I enjoy both the legal insight, the background essays, and the breaking news with very little name-calling, insults, and noise as found on other sites.

  28. avatar
    Greg September 18, 2009 at 6:08 pm #

    Could she say, it wasn’t me, it was my disbarred assistant? That would be worse for her, since you are not allowed to let disbarred attorneys do this sort of thing. You’re responsible for what those you supervise do. So, she’d have the fine, and an independent violation of the ethics rules.

  29. avatar
    Gordon September 18, 2009 at 6:26 pm #

    It appears Judge Land was not amused by Orly’s court conduct or post court statements. He’s threatening a $10,000 fine. I’m sure Heavy will contribute to the cause.

    http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/09/18/taitz_sanctions/

  30. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 18, 2009 at 6:34 pm #

    I strongly disagree.

    A motion for reconsideration is a new stage of the proceeding. When an attorney receives an order, such as the denial of TRO – then the attorney needs to advise the client, lay out options, and let the client decide what to do next. This would be especially true given that the order labeled the action as frivolous and threatened sanctions, since sanctions can potentially run against the party (client) as well as the attorney. [See Rule 11(c)(1)]

    Orly had a duty to promptly advise Rhodes when the TRO was denied; explain the holding and explain options; and follow instructions from there.

  31. avatar
    Bob September 18, 2009 at 6:50 pm #

    There’s no requirement that the client explicitly authorize every filing and tactical choice made during litigation.

    Taitz does have a duty to advise, of course, and she can be faulted for that. That is the stronger basis for an ethical complaint.

  32. avatar
    brygenon September 18, 2009 at 7:25 pm #

    OK, I’m getting lost. The Motion to Reconsider wasn’t, it was a Stay

    Judge Land also found that confusing. As he explains in a footnote, “Though the motion is titled “Emergency Request for Stay of 2 Deployment,” it appears to be a motion for reconsideration because it catalogues Plaintiff’s reasons why she believes the Court’s order of dismissal should be vacated.”

    Can Orly claim it wasn’t her that wrote it, please don’t sanction her, it was the disbarred assistant?

    I’d guess the right move is to tone down, show the Court some respect, and retract a few remarks. Really my recommendation for Taitz would be to get competent counsel.

    For digging out from a screw-up, Captain Rhodes’ letter to the court is a masterpiece.

  33. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 18, 2009 at 7:27 pm #

    Well we will have to agree to disagree.

    I think there are clear steps in a legal proceeding that are break points where an attorney would need to seek approval from a client. As a lawyer I had plenty of times when I disagreed with clients as to strategy and tactics and knew when to pull rank in the course of a lawsuit — for example, I wouldn’t have tried to introduce testimony of a witness that lacked credibility or was inadmissible, no matter how much the client wanted me to do that.

    However, a court’s decision on any dispositive motion is a situation when a client needs to be involved. It might be different in a situation where time is critical and the client cannot be easily reached — for example, if you trying to get a stay of execution for your death row client, you simply don’t stop no matter what. But that’s a life and death matter, and the duties of the lawyer are pretty clear in that situation.

    I think that in the real world of actual practice, this issue would rarely come up, simply because clients are paying their lawyers by the hour. A law firm that initiates a new round of pleadings and motions without first getting the client’s approval is likely to find that their client is unwilling to pay their fees — so they aren’t going to waste their time.

  34. avatar
    Bob September 18, 2009 at 7:41 pm #

    Obviously the duty to advise is closely related to authorization to act.

    Reading Rhodes’ letter, you get the sense that she didn’t know that this was coming. She probably had no idea that the court was threatening sanctions because Taitz didn’t tell her that, and, had she been so advised, she wouldn’t have authorized another filing. But it is possible she did know about the threat of sanctions and nonetheless authorized further filings, but had no idea it would be so contemptuous.

    And, yes, in the real world this would never happen, as a paying client would say “I never authorized this work so I’m not paying for it”, and a competent attorney would seek prior client authorization to make sure they’d get paid for work to be performed.

  35. avatar
    Chris September 18, 2009 at 8:04 pm #

    I agree that the Rhodes letter to the Court is a masterpiece. Either she decided to write this herself or was advised to do so by someone else. If the former, she has finally shown the intelligence one would expect from a medical doctor. If the latter, she has finally decided to listen to wise counsel (as opposed to Orly, who is crazy counsel).

  36. avatar
    Bob September 18, 2009 at 8:11 pm #

    I would say with that letter Rhodes’ just saved herself $10,000.

  37. avatar
    thisoldhippie September 18, 2009 at 9:25 pm #

    Don’t know if this has been posted yet. It was on The Right Side of Life.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19905657/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-18-Letter-regarding-from-plaintiff-regarding-withdrawal-of-motion-to-stay-Govuscourtsgamd77605180

  38. avatar
    Rickey September 18, 2009 at 10:23 pm #

    Another smackdown of Orly, this time by her client!

  39. avatar
    Rickey September 18, 2009 at 10:32 pm #

    Gordon: It appears Judge Land was not amused by Orly’s court conduct or post court statements. He’s threatening a $10,000 fine. I’m sure Heavy will contribute to the cause.http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/09/18/taitz_sanctions/

    The order is here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19903493/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-17-ORDER-denying-15RECAP-Motion-for-Stay-of-Deployment-filed-by-Connie-Rhodes-Ordered-by-Judge-Clay-D-Land-Govuscourtsg

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 18, 2009 at 11:10 pm #

    Hang on. Sanctions are not paid by clients or did I miss that day in law school (that I never attended)?

  41. avatar
    misha September 18, 2009 at 11:19 pm #

    I am praying that her CO is black.

  42. avatar
    Bob September 18, 2009 at 11:50 pm #

    Rhodes didn’t really fire Taitz; the letter is a forgery!

    (A birfer claiming a document is adverse to their beliefs? Shocking.)

  43. avatar
    Bob September 18, 2009 at 11:50 pm #

    Rhodes didn’t really fire Taitz; the letter is a forgery!

    (A birfer claiming that a document adverse to their beliefs is a forgery? Shocking.)

  44. avatar
    Benji Franklin September 19, 2009 at 12:00 am #

    Dear Rickey and This Old Hippie,

    Undoubtedly, in the Birther Universe, having Orly thwacked down by the Judge twice, and accused of deceit and misconduct by her own client, will be perceived as a great legal victory presaging the imminent arrest and deportation of President Obama to Gitmo for a summary hanging and a show & tell trial by a partial American Grand Jury!

    I have several attorney friends who have watched Orly’s antics with increasingly appalled fascination. They inform me that their consensus view of her Obama Offense balances her obvious hatred of Obama with the growing suspicion that she does not comprehend that it is for a client’s DEFENSE, that a on-line educated attorney develops a plea of insanity, not for her own Esquire selfness!

    Her lack of shame is sociopathic.

    BenjiFranklin

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 19, 2009 at 12:11 am #

    Strunk filed something with the DC District Court of Appeals. I don’t find any documents, however.

    09/17/2009 US CIVIL ORIGINAL PROCEEDING CASE docketed. [09-5322]
    09/17/2009 PETITION filed [1206837] by Petitioner Christopher Earl Strunk for writ of mandamus. [No Service] voluminous [09-5322]
    09/17/2009 MOTION filed [1206838] by Christopher Earl Strunk to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis [Case Number 09-5322: ifppca] [Service Date: 09/11/2009 ] [09-5322] (received 9/11/09 by court)
    09/17/2009 MOTION filed [1206840] by Christopher Earl Strunk to waive docketing fee [Service Date: 09/11/2009 ] [09-5322] (received by court on 9/11/09)
    09/17/2009 DOCKETING STATEMENT FILED [1206842] by Christopher Earl Strunk [No Service Date] [09-5322]

  46. avatar
    Rickey September 19, 2009 at 12:14 am #

    Bob: Rhodes didn’t really fire Taitz; the letter is a forgery!(A birfer claiming that a document adverse to their beliefs is a forgery?Shocking.)

    On closer examination, the letter may very well be a fake. The signature looks like it was cut and pasted from another document. The other odd thing is that the letter says that she will mail the original from Iraq, although the letter was faxed from an Office Max store in Georgia. Why would she have to wait until she gets to Iraq to mail the letter when she could have simply dropped it into a mailbox?

  47. avatar
    Bob September 19, 2009 at 12:22 am #

    There are usually “hurry up, district court!” petitions. The petitioner wants to the circuit court to force the district court to make a ruling.

    They are almost always denied (but a phone call may be made as a discrete reminder).

  48. avatar
    Bob September 19, 2009 at 12:32 am #

    Her lack of shame is sociopathic.

    There’s something about Taitz’s latest media appearance that makes it looks like she’s really, really gone ’round the bend.

  49. avatar
    Adrianinflorida September 19, 2009 at 1:49 am #

    “Dr” Polarik will need to examine a photo of the original letter, allegedly from Rhodes, for traces of the Photoshop.

  50. avatar
    Bob September 19, 2009 at 2:01 am #

    Oh, snap!

  51. avatar
    richCares September 19, 2009 at 2:06 am #

    she is claiming Judge Carter will allow her case to go forward, claim is being made to get paypal pushed, her minions will fall for it. Can’t wait till Oct 5 hearing. it will be crazy time for Orly! I will love it, her mental breakdown on Oct 5.

  52. avatar
    richCares September 19, 2009 at 2:08 am #

    This is a meaningless issue, just forget it!

  53. avatar
    aarrgghh September 19, 2009 at 3:00 am #

    richcares said:

    she is claiming Judge Carter will allow her case to go forward, claim is being made to get paypal pushed, her minions will fall for it. Can’t wait till Oct 5 hearing. it will be crazy time for Orly! I will love it, her mental breakdown on Oct 5.

    from orly’s blog: ka-ching!!!

    OK, people, i just donated another $1,000 that i don’t really have to spend, but i did it for the good of the country. it’s put up or shut up time now with discovery so close at hand. save your well wishes and prayers for after you hit that donation button. BTW, i have no connection to dr. taitz or capt. rhodes other than the desire to see the usurper and his cadre brought to justice for his crimes against my country. show your support for orly and capt. rhodes with your pocketbook, your wallet and your time, since they have been showing their support for you through their time, their treasure, and their sacred honor.

    remember, it is always darkest before the dawn. godspeed orly and capt. rhodes. you have our eternal thanks for your sacrifices and righteousness before god and men.

    george hull would be proud.

  54. avatar
    kimba September 19, 2009 at 9:06 am #

    $1000?! Do you think this person sent “money they didn’t have to spend” to Jim and Tammy Faye Baker in the 80’s? Or is this a “planted” post to get others to give. You know, like when they “seed” the tip jar at the coffee house with a 5.

  55. avatar
    thisoldhippie September 19, 2009 at 9:24 am #

    I work for an attorney as a paralegal – have been since 1993. Orly Taitz knows less about civil procedure and courtroom decorum than I’ve forgotten! She is an embarrassment to any good attorney.

  56. avatar
    thisoldhippie September 19, 2009 at 9:39 am #

    I have a question that I am asking someone to please answer – how do these people think that sanctions equal “value in controversy” and will get them a trial via Ammendment VII?

  57. avatar
    milspec September 19, 2009 at 10:08 am #

    I have a feeling she will say Judge Land go to hell you Brownshirt thug.
    I see handcuff in Taitz’s future

  58. avatar
    Rita September 19, 2009 at 10:23 am #

    Just curious, is anyone else wondering about footnote 3 on Page 3 of Judge Land’s order denying the TRO and dismissing the case? He discusses Congress’ satisfaction with President Obama’s eligibility, and specifically mentions the Hawaii resolution. Now, I know it’s non-binding, but why would Judge Land use it as an example of Congress’ satisfaction of President Obama’s eligibility, when it only says he was born in Hawaii, if he needed 2 citizen parents in order to be eligible, or his dual citizenship made him ineligible? In fact, Judge Land states that by resolving simply that President Obama was born in Hawaii, Congress REJECTED any notion that he was ineligible. Seems like Judge Land is implicitly confirming the Wong Kim Ark et. al line of cases and (correctly) implying you only need to be born on U.S. soil. Birthers might want to be a little worried about that πŸ™‚

  59. avatar
    aarrgghh September 19, 2009 at 11:03 am #

    land was probably referring to the unanimity of the easily passed vote, rather than the specific facts stipulated in the resolution.

  60. avatar
    Bob September 19, 2009 at 12:09 pm #

    Obviously that kind of flawed logic cannot be rationally explained.

    But even if Taitz was afforded a trial, it would be about her behavior, not Obama’s. It would be no different than the situation Michael New was in.

  61. avatar
    Mary Brown September 19, 2009 at 12:44 pm #

    Good question. But I think Orly is really about Orly. The donations just add to her sense of superiority. Since everything in the Universe revolves around her thoughts, emotions and needs there is no need to go outside of her central perspective. And for some reason I can’t fathom some people are drawn to that kind of person. Maybe because she does all their thinking for them? As far as seeding the jar goes. Of course she could,because everything Orly does is moral and justified because she is the source of morality and justice.

  62. avatar
    Rita September 19, 2009 at 3:34 pm #

    Maybe, but it just seemed strange that he mentioned it in the section discussing how Congress thought President Obama was eligible, and saying that by passing the resolution Congress rejected the idea that he was ineligible, if he wasn’t speaking to the eligibility issue. Seems to me like he was saying that the resolution rejected the idea that he was ineligible because by stating that he was born in Hawaii, they were essentially stating he was eligible – i.e. just his birth in his Hawaii made him eligible. Might be a stretch (or wishful thinking :)) but that’s what it seemed to say to me.

  63. avatar
    aarrgghh September 19, 2009 at 3:59 pm #

    both elements are no doubt true; it’s not an either/or proposition. but land’s point would not have been very strong had the resolution stirred a lot of controversy instead of passing effortlessly without a word of debate on the facts stipulated.

  64. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 19, 2009 at 6:53 pm #

    I think the point is to emphasize how totally frivolous the birther point of view is, especially in the context of a military officer challenging the legitimacy of the commander-in-chief.

    It’s not like there is a real controversy — such as with the electoral votes from Florida in 2000 or from Ohio in 2004.

    What makes a case “frivolous” is not merely that the weight of the law is against the lawyer — if that were the case, we would still have segregated schools because no one really expected Brown v. Board of Education to come out the way it did. Criminal defendants wouldn’t be entitled to state-paid lawyers, because no one ever thought Clarence Gideon had a chance of winning his case. And what’s with the whole thing about Miranda warnings?

    So to a certain extent you have to look at the weight of public opinion and overall political context to distinguish between an “open question” — a “long shot” — and a legal claim that can be properly labeled “frivolous” and subject to court sanctions.

    So Land is pointing out that not only are Orly’s claims unsupported by any evidence, but also that no intelligent person takes them seriously. Obama did, in fact, disseminate a copy of his official government-issued birth certificate during the election. Everyone in Congress does, in fact, accept the reported biographical data that he was born in Hawaii. It isn’t a court ruling on eligibility, just a lesson in why the birther position is so patently ridiculous.

  65. avatar
    Rita September 20, 2009 at 8:53 am #

    That makes a lot of sense – thanks

  66. avatar
    Ima Foreigner September 23, 2009 at 3:26 pm #

    More fan mail for Judge Land on Orly’s site. The latest one being from ‘Steven K. Neuenschwander, Retired Criminal Magistrate’. He seems to have stepped up his credentials lately – as one of Orly’s 1 million plaintiffs he is listed as ‘MSGT’.

    MasterSargeantMagistrate opens with ‘I have been an officer of the courts for over thirty years. In that time I have never seen a total disregard to our constitutional laws and a blatant disrespect for the robe you wear as I have seen in your actions in the recent case of Capt Rhodes.’

    Good to see that he has not lost his sense of perspective.

    Have to agree with him on this part though – ‘Captain Rhodes and tens of thousands other Americans stand in arms way’.

    Those damn Taliban – always out there clotheslining the troops. And you know that the refs never catch them.